Thursday, 29 November 2007

DNA testing for Arthur

ALABAMA:DNA testing for ArthurTHE ISSUE: It's inconceivable that the state of Alabama won't order DNAtesting before executing a death row inmate who claims to be innocent.Thomas Arthur may absolutely be guilty of a 1982 murder for which he wassentenced to death. Arthur emphatically claims he is not; a jury concludedhe was.The truth is, there's at least some evidence to suggest guilt and otherevidence that makes you wonder. Unfortunately, the jury that decidedArthur's fate didn't have the luxury of DNA testing that might have helpedthem sort through the complicated facts of the case.Had the technology existed at the time of his trial, surely DNA testswould have been conducted on the evidence, which includes hair and semen.It's routinely used now on the front end of criminal cases to confirmguilt or to eliminate suspects.It boggles the mind, then, that the state of Alabama won't order DNA testsbefore proceeding to execute Arthur on Dec. 6.True, the U.S. Supreme Court this week denied Arthur's legal bid for DNAtesting. But the courts are bound by legal timelines and rules. We may notalways like those constraints, but at least we can see the reasoningbehind the decision.Gov. Bob Riley is under no such rules. He can order DNA testing in thiscase, and there's no good reason for him not to do it.Arthur is accused of killing Troy Wicker, at the behest of Wicker's wifeand Arthur's lover, Judy. Judy Wicker at first claimed someone broke intoher home, raped her and killed her husband. But later, under a deal to getout of prison, Judy Wicker testified she paid Arthur to do the deed.Testing evidence recovered in the case - including semen taken from Mrs.Wicker - may merely confirm Arthur's guilt. But it might also implicatesomeone else or at least lend credence to Mrs. Wicker's first version ofthe crime. In other words, it could bolster Arthur's claims of innocence.Either way, what does it hurt to do the testing before carrying outArthur's execution?Even the victim's family has supported Arthur's efforts to get theevidence tested, expressing uncertainty about the truth in the case.Other factors the governor should consider: Judy Wicker, who under theprosecutors' theory of the case is as guilty as Arthur, served only 10years in prison for her husband's murder. The prosecutor who tried Arthurhad been a private attorney representing Mrs. Wicker.And while Arthur asked for the death penalty - in an effort, he said, toensure more appeals court scrutiny of the case - he was one of the inmateson Alabama's Death Row who missed crucial appeals deadlines because he didnot have a lawyer. (Alabama is alone in not making sure condemned inmateshave lawyers at every stage of the appeal process, but that's an editorialfor another day.)Arthur's date with death may be held up anyway as a result of a largercourt case over the particulars of lethal injection. But it's worth it tohold off on the execution just to allow time for DNA results.Indeed, if Riley had ordered the test when the request was first made,we'd already have the answer.The Birmingham News)